Opinion
No. 3-168 / 03-0169
Filed March 26, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Timko, Associate Juvenile Judge.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to five of her children on a variety of grounds. AFFIRMED.
Martha McMinn, Sioux City, attorney for Mother.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tabitha Gardner, Assistant Attorney General, and Cindy Weber, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Michelle Dreibelbis, Sioux City, guardian ad litem for the minor children.
Sharon Reddeer, Winnebago, Nebraska, Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, attorney for Intervenor.
Considered by Sackett, C. J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to five of her children. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Dawn is the mother of seven children, five of whom are the subject of this proceeding: Twins Edith and Tobin, born in 1997, Jason, born in 1996, Cameron (Joey), born in 1994, and Becca, born in 1992. Dawn has struggled to meet the children's basic needs such as the provision of adequate housing.
The family began receiving voluntary services in 1997. The children were removed two years later due to adverse conditions in the home and supervision problems. After several termination hearings, the district associate court ultimately terminated Dawn's parental rights in January 2003.
II. Merits
Dawn raises the following grounds for reversal:
A) the court's order did not cite the grounds for termination,
B) she complied with court directives for reunification,
C) the Department of Human Services did not make reasonable efforts toward reunification,
D) separation of the five children from their siblings was not in the children's best interests,
E) she was not responsible for the children's disruptive behaviors, and
F) the court inappropriately relied on circumstances relating to a child who was not named in the termination petition.A. Grounds for Termination. The State petitioned to terminate Dawn's parental rights pursuant to Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(c) (physical or sexual abuse or neglect and circumstances continue despite the receipt of services), (d) (absence of significant or meaningful contact), and (h) (child in imminent danger, services would not correct conditions). The district court specifically addressed these grounds, albeit not in its final order. The court dismissed the allegations under section 232.116(1)(d) but found the remaining grounds for termination satisfied. Therefore, we reject Dawn's contention that the Court did not cite the grounds for termination.
These provisions have been renumbered as Iowa Code sections 232.116(1)(d), (e), and (i). (Supp. 2001).
B. Compliance with Directives. The court deferred termination of Dawn's parental rights to allow her time to address certain concerns cited by the Department. After six months, the court found Dawn had failed to satisfy the conditions set forth in the earlier order and terminated her parental rights. Dawn contends she satisfied those conditions.
The record does reflect Dawn satisfied several conditions, such as keeping medicines out of the reach of the children, not smoking in their presence, and not having men around the home. The Department found, however, that she had not satisfied the requirement to obtain adequate housing because the house she rented still needed substantial improvements. The Department also determined she had not complied with the requirement to timely provide monthly budgets.
Given the long period afforded Dawn to meet Department expectations, we agree with the district associate court that her "failure to timely establish adequate housing" was grounds for termination of her parental rights.
C. Reasonable Efforts. The Department is required to make reasonable efforts toward reunification. In re C.B., 611 N.W.2d 489, 493-94 (Iowa 2000). The Department furnished the family a variety of services over a period of years designed to address parenting issues, issues relating to basic needs, and issues relating to the physical and emotional health of the children. While Dawn maintains she was not provided assistance to deal with the children's attachment problems, the record reflects that, just two months before the final termination hearing, Dawn had not signed releases needed to obtain this assistance. Before the final termination hearing, a Department representative opined that despite four years of services, the children would continue as children in need of assistance if returned to their mother's care.
D. Best Interests. Dawn contends separation of the five siblings from the two that remained with Dawn was not in their best interests. See In re Dameron, 306 N.W.2d 743, 745 (Iowa 1981) (stating primary concern is child's best interest). However, by the time of the termination proceedings, the five had been separated from the other two, for a period of years. For example, the record reflects that the twins were first removed from Dawn's home in 1999 and spent close to three years in various foster homes. According to one report, they did not seem to have a strong bond with their other siblings. Becca was in a separate foster home, and Joey and Jason were in another. Joey and Jason were very close and Becca had a strong bond with all her siblings except the twins, but a bonding assessment evaluator noted that all five children displayed attachment problems. On this record, we are not persuaded that termination should have been delayed based on the bond between some of the five children and their two older siblings.
E. Disruptive Behaviors. Dawn argues she was not responsible for the children's disruptive behaviors on which the court relied, because she only saw the children once a week for two hours. The record does reflect that circumstances beyond Dawn's control may have contributed to the disruptive behaviors of the twins, in particular. Specifically, Tobin suffered from health problems that required time away from his mother while he was an infant. Additionally, after the twins were removed from Dawn's care, they were transferred from one foster home to another, exacerbating their behavioral problems. However, as a Department representative stated, if Dawn had complied with services from the outset, many of the problems cited by the Department would have been resolved. For these reasons, we believe the court was justified in relying on the five children's behavioral problems in terminating Dawn's parental rights to them.
An evaluator found little attachment between the children and their foster parents.
F. Reliance on Facts Relating to Sixth Child . Dawn finally claims the court inappropriately relied on parenting issues relating to a child who was not named in the termination petition. The record reflects that Dawn's ability to care for this child was deemed a measure of whether she could care for the others. A court appointed special advocate opined "Dawn could not be responsible for other children when she is unable to adequately care for a child who has been forced to be self-sufficient during her teen years." We conclude the court did not inappropriately consider this child's circumstances.
III. Disposition
We affirm the termination of Dawn's parental rights to Tobin, Edith, Jason, Cameron (Joey), and Becca.